greencat

After they have LTE 800 and 1900 at a site and it is turned on and functioning as it should is the backhaul that is at that site sufficient for band 41? Or do they have to run all new backhaul to the site before they turn on the B41? What would cause them to install the B41 antennas/rrus/equipment on a site with live LTE 800 and 1900 but not turn on the B41 equipment?

Specifically wondering about the Galaxy S 6 and LG G4. Also wasn't there supposed to be a wall article on CCA/RRPP updates? Just wondering if you guys have heard anything that I've missed. Should be pretty close to that info coming out.

Dont shoot the messenger.

Wow. What an eye opening conversation. This all recollected to the best of my abilities. 1. He works on Sprint, tmobile, and verizon towers. 2. He works for ericson 3. Sprint is deploying "6500 mhz service" i asked if he meant 2600 and he said no, that was already done. 4. Said it takes 6 months to a year for them to do a site survey when a company wants to add new equipment to a tower. 5. He go into the numbers that a rep for a particular company might be responsible for and tmobile reps can have up to 160 towers. he has 20. 6. Sprint constantly screws up and this guy will be surprised if theyre still around in 2 years. 7. He thought sprint should've bought tmobile and it wouldve been the best company. 8. In many areas where sprint has weak service due to poor tower density tough luck, it isnt going to get any better. 9. He said Att and Verizon dont even have to train their guys because as soon as a Sprint guy is trained he'll leave for another company. 10. Said he's eligible for retirement at the end of this year. Obviously he was confused on a few of his points. But it was interesting still. Did seem to have decent knowledge of the site spacing issues and new tower construction snags.

Band 26 equipment is/was allegedly installed at the same time as band 25. Unless there was some other circumstances that limited the deployment. Band 41 was to be done later, but they're already supposed to be working on it for the last 2 months. I think there is one down by Estero. They haven't been fast movers in this market at all.

1 line $56

will be interesting to see if it is instantly congested. How many B41 sites have you guys seen here?

Marcelo cancelled the Framily plan because it was allegedly too complicated, but I think this is complicated as hell. Best way to break it down is total price over 24 months.

From what I see you just have to pay a higher monthly bill for your plan ie. $85 vs $60 if you were to get the LG G3. So in that instance your option is to buy the phone for $50, then pay $85 (single line plan) for 2 years or lease the phone for $15 a month and pay $60 a month for your plan. $2090 vs 1800. I didn't realize that's how Sprint was pricing things now. I think that's a bit of a ripoff. So Sprint is essentially thinking that phone will be worth $290 at the end of the 2 year lease? Do you own the phone after 2 years of paying $15/month for it?

Does it make sense to factor in a penalty because a customer couldn't/didn't follow through on their original committment?

Not sure if your numbers are accurate

How does paying $20/month for a phone and using it beyond 24 months lead you to "you will always save"??? That's $480 for a phone you could get for $200 with a contract. If you're gonna stay with sprint anyway that'd be a much cheaper option

its funny/interesting to read the forum of an area that's been denied a service for so long.

My initial thought with back of the napkin 1 min math is that any lease over $10 a month is a terrible deal for the purchaser... $5 a month is not horrible. $60 a year plus you get a the latest phones... sounds about as good as you can do.

why would someone want to lease a phone?

With increases in technology prices generally decline. Cable TV and Internet service which has a 90%+ profit margin are of the few exceptions.

Are you talking about the stock or the service? Either way, both can get worse.

Honestly, same thing happens here. I would know.

10,000 Towers/sites is A LOT. Especially when you have approx 7,000 sitting out there right now without upgraded backhaul. I think Sprint needs to be within 10% of the average between the #1 & #2 companies with the most towers. That would go a long ways to clearing up holes in coverage and it would make Sprint competitive for most people. There are thousands of racks/towers out there that Sprint has just decided it doesn't need to be on - to try and save money, but that needs to change.

Stripping?

LOL Sadly, that is a timeline I believe. ;-\

Does this help get the equipment any faster or deploy it faster? Or is there still the issue with the companies not making the equipment fast enough?

Sooooo another 6 months right ? jk jk.

Other companies are adding 1 million + customers during the same period. So while it is a big improvement for Sprint to not be negative, relative to their main competitors it is pretty weak.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Preliminary-results-for-Sprints-third-quarter-show-30000-net-additions-to-postpaid-accounts_id64537 The bulk of the carrier's net additions was in the wholesale (527,000) and pre-paid (410,000) side of the business. The postpaid net additions, where all of the cheesecake is, came out to a rather pedestrian 30,000. Compare that to T-Mobile, which announced this morning that it added 1.3 million post paid accounts during the quarter. Said they had most people join in 3 years. Just can't keep people from leaving.